Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sean_M

Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

Recommended Posts

think I've stuffed up the prop on my airfix spit 22, is there an aftermarket one aside from the feightdog f24 conversion for it? would rather not go to airfix spares first, still waiting on a rely on a fairly substantial request

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

think I've stuffed up the prop on my airfix spit 22, is there an aftermarket one aside from the feightdog f24 conversion for it? would rather not go to airfix spares first, still waiting on a rely on a fairly substantial request

Probably but I think I have a spare. It's yours, if you want it. PM me, if you're interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Cooper Details one which is much better than the Airfix one (if you're talking about 1/48, which isn't clear - always a good idea to specify which scale kit you are building in when asking about spare parts...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are talking 1/72, the Freightdog prop is correct whereas the kit one is too small for the late Griffon marks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are talking 1/72, the Freightdog prop is correct whereas the kit one is too small for the late Griffon marks.

I thought the 22 used the same prop as ealier versions with the larger bing only on 24? Edited by PhantomBigStu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought only the Mk.21 had the smaller prop. However, I've not been able to justify even that. A more powerful engine is better with a bigger prop, and the undercarriage was taller on all the XX-series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well my info was from this http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/61633-spitfire-mk22-propeller-diameter/, found no info to back it up

EDIT, spitfire story agrees with the info, the prop should be the same, though just found out freightdog did an upgrade prop for the F22 in addition to the 24 conversion one

Edited by PhantomBigStu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sticking with 11' diameter for all (single-rotation) 20 series until someone can prove otherwise (sorry, but a quote from Spit the Hist isn't sufficient). To me the trump card is the different prop reduction ratio between the engines. And for those of you just joining this line of reasoning, remember that the Mk.21 (in terms of development) came first, and the Mk.XIV HAD to use a smaller diameter prop because it was still using the "old" landing gear geometry.

bob

p.s. I've studied the Griffon Spit evolution quite a bit, and while I have documents discussing gear ratios and best props, I recall none saying, "Oh, we WERE going to use 11', but we haven't gotten any from production, so meanwhile..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STH is indeed not greatly helpful: the only reference to any prop size is 11' on DP851, and that PP139 had a Rotol R19/5.5/1. Nothing is said about production standard for Mk.21 or Mk.22. The Mk.24 is said to have a Rotol R14/5.5/2 of 11'10". (The Mk.XIV had a Rotol R14/5.5/1 of 10' 5".)

There are a number of quotes in the text stating that the Mk.22 was basically the same as the Mk.21, and the Mk.24 basically the same as the Mk.22. You'd have thought that they'd have mentioned any prop changes.

Edited by Graham Boak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was discussed on BM round about the time the Airfix Mk 22 was released. Link.

Basically, the Spitfire 14 had a propeller of 10' 5" diameter, Mk 21/22 had one 11' diameter and the Mk 24 prop was 11' 10".

John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that thread's already been linked to, and is not entirely definitive. I also wonder if that "11 foot 10 inch" is simply an error, but it may very well be a real change of prop/blade.

bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that the 11' 10'' figure is a misprint. When they designed the new wing for the 21 they also added longer legs which allowed the prop diameter to be extended 7 inches from 10' 5'' on the XIV/XVIII/XIX to 11' 0'' for the 21. Given that the 22 was essentially a low-back 21, and that there is no mention anywhere of giving the 24 even longer legs than the 22 to allow a full extra 10 inches for the propeller diameter, I'm tempted to believe that the real difference between 11' 0'' for the 21/22 and 11' 10'' for the 24 is a typing/printing error. But I'd be happy to see this hypothesis debunked.

Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my own suspicions about the designation, which implies that the Mk.24 prop was a modification of the Mk.XIV's R14/etc whereas the Mk.21/22 prop was the R19/etc. Or at least early test ones were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello I have just completed my full scale 1/1 replica of the Mk I spitfire instrument panel enterely made from scratch (1 and a half year of work..) and a last detail is missing now.

I copied in every details the panel of R6692 (daily inspection of a spitfire video) and I am referring to a screenshot where is clearly evident that in the middle of the two oxygen instruments located in the upper left part of the panel, there are two lockwires and a small plumbing at their ends. I cannot understand from where they departs from and wobder if there are some further images available to better understand this.

Thanks a lot in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing in either the I's or II's Pilot's Notes, but there's a wingnut-shaped turnkey between and below the dials. Maybe the pilot had some rubber tubing fitted to the "wings" to make it easier to turn during flight? (Two pairs of gloves can make anyone slightly fumble-fisted.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doorgunner, here is a detail taken from 6:23 of this video, which I think is what you are referring to

To be honest I am not sure which feature you are asking about, but is it on this picture?

Inspection%20video%20oxy%20inst%20shot_z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it that bit at the bottom of the lower photo? "Pull... something... for... something"

bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everybody and thanks for your kind replies, yes the posted image is exactly the part I refer of and in particular, the two lockwires are seen between the two instruments. I attach a picture to better show, where arrows 1 and 2 are the lockwires, while arrow number 3 shows the small piece of lead the closes the end of the metal wire.

They seems to come out of the metal plate the is the back of the whole device, on the left more or less under the letters..."EE" and on the right under the letters .."PP".

Thanks ciao

Maurizio

qwer_zpsx6ukftqp.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I saw many Spitfire factory plant pictures showing a monochrome paint during the assembly.

PM2661449@.jpg

dr.Price photo.

So another question please : what could be the colour of the protective paint during the factory process assembly ? can anyone point me the direction to technical references and sources ?

thanks for your answers.

olivier

Edited by JOAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eureka...!! At last I solved the mistery ! There are four holes in the plate where the lockwires come through ...

Thanks a lot to you all for the patience in such strange questions...(sometimes...) :winkgrin:

ox_zpsfark9cdv.jpg

Edited by doorgunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The firewall and engine bearers are cockpit grey-green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The firewall and engine bearers are cockpit grey-green.

I think I wasn't clear..sorry.

Thanks Edgar but my question was about the outside surfaces like fuselage or wings. I wasn't able to find any reference in my shelf to point me the process of protection coating/paint used during the factory process.

Some photos show clearly something different of the camo paint - whatever the type - ...is it a primer like zinc chromate used on the american planes ? don't look like a translucent coating ( the "bronze" you can find in the K5054 or the one used today on several restorations ).

On the pic below what is the colour /protection product for the Karman, the canopy frame, the ailerons ? the nose panels of the background's spitfires ?...

23-23-7557926480_17cc030455_k.jpg

So what was the industrial process ? natural metal + protection coating ( wich one ? ) + primer ( which one ? ) + camo ? ( seems to not be in the MkV manual...Shacklady somewhere ? )

Thanks again for your help.

olivier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alclad aluminium + grey primer (could be medium or dark grey) + top colours.

Spares were supposed to be delivered in grey primer, leaving the user unit to apply the top colours.

Instructions issued as a Supermarine factory drawing, with all methods of treating which material (or not, in some cases, like the exhaust stubs, or copper pipes) with which paint. The RAF Museum has (some) copies; you won't find them in any commercially-available book, to my knowledge.

K5054 was green (believed to be anodised,) not bronze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...